MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Stlcards234 I agree with most of what you said, however for some teams maintaining the status quo is all that's really possible/likely. Sure they are trying to improve their team but with the amount of turnover they have from being a small market team it usually winds up just maintaining status quo.

Even if the status quo is a pretty good team, see Oakland, Tampa etc.. Beane and these guys do a fantastic job trading and building their teams. However do to the nature of their budgets even if the trade made their teams better it's still just maintaining what they were.

[KingFry]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Still looking for some insight on my phills chise a few pages back... to recap...

1. Is trading Cole Hamels realistic?

2. What is the best haul I could get for Lee? Has anyone seen one better then one from the Dodgers?

3. Looking to pair Burnett(3 ERA, possible all star this year) with Howard/Byrd(or both)

4. If possible I could deal Dom Brown, if so what would be the ideal value I could get for him?

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Ok I wasn't really expecting much. Could you give some examples on what a tier 3 pitcher would be?

Realistically about all you can do to grab a great pitcher is to wait until the off season and hope someone comes out, a la Shields or so.

Coming from a annual Yankee franchiser.

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Still looking for some insight on my phills chise a few pages back... to recap...

1. Is trading Cole Hamels realistic?

2. What is the best haul I could get for Lee? Has anyone seen one better then one from the Dodgers?

3. Looking to pair Burnett(3 ERA, possible all star this year) with Howard/Byrd(or both)

4. If possible I could deal Dom Brown, if so what would be the ideal value I could get for him?

1. I really don't see it happening, especially since they will get a good haul for Lee already.

2. The Dodgers I think give the best return, but Texas might could get close(I'd pick L.A.tough)

3. Unless he's playing really well in your chise someone taking him in a Burnett deal would be doing you the favor, and it would HAVE to be a AL team. Toronto seems the best for AJ, but they don't need Howard. Yanks could use a pitcher like him but won't go after him as he's proved he can't pitch there.

4. Personally I wouldn't trade him seems like he could develop nicely and your already going to bringing in quite a bunch with your other trades.

[stlcards234]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I reject your axioms - that most trades don't have at least somewhat clear winners, that one bad move results in large decreases in profit, that status quo is undesirable in all cases, that one move like this can lead to dismissal in all cases, that there is less risk involved when dealing with other teams, and that teams from other sports adopt the same ideology - at the hand. This makes it far beyond possible to have much of an argument. Seeing as it's 11:34, I'm just gonna sign off. I don't think I can agree with your post.

Like I said before, was just my opinion on things. Not looking for anyone to agree on anything I mentioned. Just figured I'd share cause I love this sort of talk. I know I oversimplified a lot but I tried to be as concise as I could.

Just to mention a few things though. Just look at how fast the Marlins lost their fans after the "fire sale"/Guillen's ramblings. Of course, they got some nice prospects in return and obviously made a lot of baseball sense- but the general public/casual fan doesn't really care about that. Anyone would probably have to admit, that trade sent a shockwave through the organization.


Also never said that maintaining the status quo is undesirables in all cases. Obviously if you are a perennial contender then the maintaining the status quo is the goal. I'm just saying that if the EV of a trade so close to 0, why make the trade? (Only adding risk, due to variance, the way I see it. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong?)


And quite frankly, MLB as well as other major sports adopt the same stance on intra-division trades. I'm not saying its because of the same or even similar reasons I put forth. But it's undeniable that there is just something that GM's don't like about trading within the division. As proof, just try to think of the big name trades (in any/all major sports) that occurred within a division. Compare that to the number of trades made outside the division. I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves. (And yes, I do realize that just shear random distribution would yield higher trade rates inter-division when compared to intra-. I'm talking about how far the actual numbers are from the expect numbers if trading within the division were a non-factor.)

[AC]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

What I will argue is that the Marlins are a special case and are brought up as an example far too often. Their attendance didn't really suffer IIRC, it just wasn't there ever. They're a morally corrupt organization in a ****ty location. They're not going to get good attendance and the way they're run kind of excludes them from being much of a good example.

That's all from me tonight

[KingFry]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

1. I really don't see it happening, especially since they will get a good haul for Lee already.

2. The Dodgers I think give the best return, but Texas might could get close(I'd pick L.A.tough)

3. Unless he's playing really well in your chise someone taking him in a Burnett deal would be doing you the favor, and it would HAVE to be a AL team. Toronto seems the best for AJ, but they don't need Howard. Yanks could use a pitcher like him but won't go after him as he's proved he can't pitch there.

4. Personally I wouldn't trade him seems like he could develop nicely and your already going to bringing in quite a bunch with your other trades.

Thanks for the insight! Do you think I could instead do Burnett/Howard to the Rangers? Howard could replace the struggling Mitch Moreland and Burnett would be a good addition to their rotation.

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Just to mention a few things though. Just look at how fast the Marlins lost their fans after the "fire sale"/Guillen's ramblings. Of course, they got some nice prospects in return and obviously made a lot of baseball sense- but the general public/casual fan doesn't really care about that. Anyone would probably have to admit, that trade sent a shockwave through the organization.

Completely different situation though, they signed a bunch of big names in the off-season and gave everyone down there hope. Then when it didn't go right straight away they sold everyone they had just signed and completely alienated the fan base as they straight up lied to them and tricked them into their brand new seats.


Just saying that is a vastly different scenario than what was being discussed.

[stlcards234]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Even if the status quo is a pretty good team, see Oakland, Tampa etc.. Beane and these guys do a fantastic job trading and building their teams. However do to the nature of their budgets even if the trade made their teams better it's still just maintaining what they were.

Hmm, I think I used a poor choice of words before when I mentioned status quo. I definitely agree with your perspective on maintaining the status quo in the situations you mentioned. Also, if a team a perennial contender, obviously maintaining the status quo is desirable.


I'll try elaborate a bit more clearly. Lets say the Nats and Braves make a deal for whoever. As a result of the trade, the Nats get 2 more wins a season. As a result of the trade, the Braves get 2 more wins a season. Both teams got better by same amount = status quo. The team who was better before the trade is still better, regardless if they would have traded or not. The team who was worse before the trade is still worse, regardless if they would have traded or not. Again, a lot more complex than this paragraph makes it- but that's what I try to mean by trades with neutral expected value aren't feasible.


I'll also double back to my other point, that if you trade outside your division, you don't have to worry about accidentally strengthening a division opponent. You only have to worry about making sure your new guy fills a role/spot/etc you need.


Not meaning to start a fight or anything. Just love to talk about this stuff. And if there is a counter point to what I have to say, I'd love to hear it.

[k_mac]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I just don't understand what the big stir is about all of the sudden.

OP asked what would be fair for Sale. Not realistic, because it's unrealistic that he gets traded in the first place with so many years remaining on his contract.

In my opinion, a large haul of prospects is what it would take to get Sale. At least 3 top 100 prospects, plus 2 of the teams top 10-20 guys. Really, that's the case with any big name player getting traded. We talk about hypothetical Stanton trades all of the time in here, and they all involve a team selling the farm for him. It's no different right now, other than the fact Stanton is an outfielder and Sale is a pitcher.

He brought up the Royals, so I told him what I thought it would take to get him. The Royals probably wouldn't have been my first choice in the trade, but he asked my opinion, and I gave it to him. In that hypothetical deal, it would definitely take Zimmer plus at least four other prospects. I don't think that's too much at all for Sale, even if it included Duffy and Ventura.

In all honesty, of all the trades that I proposed, I liked the Texas one the most. It seemed the most realistic to me, because it involved two middle infielders who were blocked at the major league level being traded away, plus a catching prospect, an outfielder and a pitcher. I don't think AC or I are arguing that KC isn't the best landing spot for Sale, (because it isn't..) we're just stating that it's more than silly to refuse to trade to a team in your division.

Like I've said, I don't agree with being against trading within the division at all. and I've already stated my points on that. I'm a Cubs fan, and just let me say this; I wouldn't be against the Cubs making a trade to any team (even the Cardinals) if it meant bringing the most value back from a player or to get a player. Because at the end of the day, you want to win, not make your fans happy by not trading to a rival or a team you play often.

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Thanks for the insight! Do you think I could instead do Burnett/Howard to the Rangers? Howard could replace the struggling Mitch Moreland and Burnett would be a good addition to their rotation.

Honestly unless he's doing some all-star type production you're going to be stuck with Howard with that horrendous contact he has. Also what's Fielders situation is he injured? Because if not the Rangers will surely not look to take on that kind of contract for a backup/spot DH'er. I think Byrd would be more intriguing to them than Howard IF you must include one with Burnett who I think they would be interested in.

[AC]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

That isn't status quo. That's both teams improving. Status quo is both teams improving by 0.0 runs.

/semantics

[stlcards234]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Completely different situation though, they signed a bunch of big names in the off-season and gave everyone down there hope. Then when it didn't go right straight away they sold everyone they had just signed and completely alienated the fan base as they straight up lied to them and tricked them into their brand new seats.


Just saying that is a vastly different scenario than what was being discussed.

Absolutely agree that the Marlin's situation was very bizarre. I was just using it as a recent example of how one bad decision can effect the whole culture of a sports franchise and effect revenue. On the other hand, one good decision can also do the same and effect revenue- those examples I'm sure you guys can think of your own.

[HighCmpPct]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I'll try elaborate a bit more clearly. Lets say the Nats and Braves make a deal for whoever. As a result of the trade, the Nats get 2 more wins a season. As a result of the trade, the Braves get 2 more wins a season. Both teams got better by same amount = status quo. The team who was better before the trade is still better, regardless if they would have traded or not. The team who was worse before the trade is still worse, regardless if they would have traded or not. Again, a lot more complex than this paragraph makes it- but that's what I try to mean by trades with neutral expected value aren't feasible.

I think we all agree with your end point, but what we're saying is that in the moment the trade is made both teams believe they are winning, no matter which way it ends up (you win, you lose, or its neutral) when both sides pull the trigger they BELIEVE they are winning that is why they decide to do it.


Also yeah totally not arguing, just loving the discussion.

[stlcards234]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

That isn't status quo. That's both teams improving. Status quo is both teams improving by 0.0 runs.

/semantics

I'm just poor with verbage


But lets say, going back to the Nats/Braves scenario- that those are the only two teams in that division competing for the division title. If both teams are expected to gain 2 wins (assuming they are not against each other), then does it really change the landscape of who would win the division regardless of the trade? No team makes up/gains ground over the other.